Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="Navy"]It's an excellent analogy, except I would add that it's OK to live off some of Earth's capital if we can find ways of paying it back with interest and principal.

Mitigation is always a second best choice when it comes to environmental issues (BTW, I'm a certified, but never practicing, Environmental Assessor). Better not to destroy. But sometimes it is necessary to destroy something to build a greater good. I accept that.

We have every right to use the planet's resources (if "right" is the right term here). We are as natural as all other critters. But we are also smart enough to know what are impacts are doing. Sadly, we're not smart enough to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Exile

The solutions to those problems, however, don't necessitate a radically different socio-economic model.

This is where we disagree. Until we recognize our economic system is fundamentally at odds with a sustainable planet, we're just moving deck chairs. But maybe I'm wrong ... I hope so.

[SV THIRD DAY]

91% of Americans are not worried about climate change....yet this thread lives on.

[IntoMyHealth]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

91% of Americans are not worried about climate change....yet this thread lives on.

99% of CF users don't care about this thread. Yet CF lives on. Just keepin' it real.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Southern California would be and is an arid desert like area without water being diverted to the region. It always has been an arid area, desert sage I think is what it's called. But due to politics, water is now being diverted to southern California lawns or allowed to flow free into the ocean, rather than being used to grow crops. More use of water, improper use of water is what's caused the artificial drought.... NOT climate change.

So which is it? 'Always' arid, or arid now because of extravagant usage?

California climate: Western Region Geology and Geophysics Science Center

Pleistocene (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago): Climate fluctuation caused intermittant periods of ice ages and warm periods. During cool, wet periods, alpine glaciers carved canyons in the Sierra Nevada and great lakes flooded intermontane valleys. Sea level rose and fell with each glaciation cycle. During low sea level periods streams carved downward into their valleys, and during high sea level periods the coastal valley became flooded and back-filled with sediments. During high-standing seas, ocean embayments covered the coastal plains and lowland basins along the coast. During low-standing seas, the shoreline extended to the margin of the modern continental shelf and many of the islands now offshore were connected via peninsulas to the mainland. Ongoing tectonic forces (faulting and folding) helped shape the uplifts and basins visible on the landscape as they appear today. Uplift and subsidence was particularly active in the Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, and Peninsular Ranges west of the San Andreas Fault. Volcanism occured along the eastern Sierra Nevada region and in the Death Valley and Mojave regions. During the Pleistocene Period, modern river systems of the region (including the Mojave and Colorado Rivers) developed at the expense of older drainage systems the were captured or diverted by tectonic uplift, faulting, volcanism, or as interior basins filled and spilled over into adjacent valleys.



And more recently:

After a postglacial warming and drying trend in California, conditions grew cooler and, in many places, wetter around 3,800 – 2,000 years ago. These conditions had the effect of lowering salinity in the San Francisco Bay Estuary and altering environmental conditions for local ecosystems. This period was followed by gradual drying throughout the state, a general trend that has been punctuated by recurring periods of prolonged and/or severe drought over the region (megadroughts) and by catastrophic wet periods (megafloods). A number of paleoclimate records from across the state suggest that notably stable conditions have prevailed over the instrumental period, i.e., after ca. A.D. 1850, despite occasional severe, short-term anomalies experienced during this period.

http://cepsym.org/Sympro2009/Malamud-Roam.pdf


And the future for the Central Valley looks especially rosy...

Due to the warming conditions, the runoff will increase in winter and decrease in spring as more precipitation falls as rain instead of snow. Reservoirs may fill earlier and excess runoff would have to be released earlier to ensure proper flood protection is maintained. This may lead to reduced storage in reservoirs when the summer irrigation season begins.
Water demands are projected to increase. Urban water use is expected to increase due to population increases in the Central Valley while agricultural uses are projected to decrease because of a decline in irrigated acreage and to a lesser extent the effects of increasing carbon dioxide.
Water quality may decline by the end of the century. Sea levels are predicted to rise up to 1.6 meters in that time frame which will lead to an increase in salinity in the Delta and a decline of habitat for fish and wildlife. River water temperatures may increase because cold water availability from reservoir storage would be reduced.
The food web in the Delta is projected to decline. Projected lower flows through the Delta and reduced cold water due to lower reservoir levels will make less water available for species, including endangered species such as migrating salmon.
Hydropower generation is projected to decline in Central Valley Project facilities due to decreased reservoir storage. However, net power usage is also expected to decline due to reductions in pumping water and conveyance.


https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleas...central-valley

Originally Posted by Exile

It's an excellent analogy, except I would add that it's OK to live off some of Earth's capital if we can find ways of paying it back with interest and principal. Striking a better balance with the many competing interests vying for CA's water resources by not allowing so much run-off would probably be a good way of starting to make up for the diminished capital.

Here's an interesting task:

Try and find a Californian river that doesn't have at least one dam on it.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I might be down in that area in Oct, but I don't have any firm schedule other that I don't want to be the NE in Oct waiting the last hurricane to blow in and I can't be south of GA before Dec.

I assume we are talking beer! I have been known to sail to a location based on beer choices.

Speaking of beer. The world will only start taking global warming serious when it effects beer production! Till then is is just hot air talk.

BTW - this is post 10,000. It seemed a waste to use it on such a silly thing. But then I thought about it and decided nothing would be a better post 10,000 than something that proves God loves me!

You'll have a great time at the Annapolis show. I'm coming back from the Med two weeks early just to attend. I hope we can get a large CF group together one or two nights to share some stories over a few beers. No serious stuff, no climate change, politics or religion. It'll be nice if you can join us.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Our Economic system is the only chance the world has....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

That's kinda the plan (as much as there is a plan). There's so much to explore up in that area that I can't see rushing through it. But you never know. If the bank account is draining too fast we might have to run south in search of cheaper digs.

But to answer you question, yes. We plan to be in NFLD for a few seasons. Thinking of joining us? That would be great .

I like your idea of a "plan." It brings to mind a quote I've always enjoyed:

"Unless we change direction, we are bound to end up where we are headed."

Btw, how will you -- or maybe I should first ask "will you" -- live on the boat all winter in a place like Lewisporte? That pic that Nicholson posted showed the marina pretty iced up & empty, and it has apparently been a warm winter up there. Or do you haul & winterize the boat and retreat to land for the winter months? Never can tell with you hardy Canadian types.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As I have pointed out a carbon tax is a advocate by staunch supporters of capitalism.

What would be radically different? And do not go all NWO and Agenda 21 on us.

Don't think I've heard of NWO (New World Order?) or Agenda 21, or how they apply. Was never all that susceptible to conspiracy theories if that's what you're suggesting.

There seem to be different types of carbon tax schemes, but if we use the one you've referenced in B.C., then the short answer is that it doesn't sound like it would do enough to offset the more dire predictions of catastrophe from the ravages of CO2 and other fossil fuel emissions. The primary gist is to reduce some of the demand which you claim it has in fact accomplished. But this can only reduce discretionary consumption, not the necessities of daily life.

As for the tax incentivizing people to change to cleaner energy, I'm dubious. First, what the energy co. pays at the source is theoretically consistent with what it recoups from charges to the end user, but what the end user gets back from the govt. in the form of a "green check" won't be without added costs of administration. At who's expense will that add'l money come from? Second, and even assuming oil prices eventually rebound, the large gap btw. the cost of clean vs. dirty energy can only be bridged -- for the foreseeable future at least -- by add'l govt subsidies. Again, all at taxpayer expense.

At a minimum, it looks to be a solution looking for a problem. Consumers will pay add'l costs at the pump and through higher taxes, all for cleaner energy technology that is not yet viable. Meanwhile, more money being taken out of the private sector means less money available for investment, which means lower productivity, lower wages, and a lower standard of living, especially for those at the middle & bottom. Remember, the govt doesn't actually produce anything; all it can do is move money around, often inefficiently. But a carbon tax may just be the straw that breaks the economy's back and puts it into another recession, which will certainly help accomplish a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels! The only problem is that this could decrease the price of oil even more -- i.e. further increase the cost gap btwn. clean vs. dirty energy -- and thereby disincentivize consumption and research into cleaner energy. It's that annoying law of unintended consequences again.

Haven't looked into why some oil cos. & conservative institutions support some form of a carbon tax, but I would't be surprised if it's motivated by some form of self-interest -- declared or not. I'm also not well informed about carbon tax scenarios other than what you've provided concerning B.C.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale:
The paper questions high resolution local models such as UKCP09. I would agree.

Originally Posted by StuM

What we have here is yet another failure to comprehend (or possibly selective myopia).

See Sections 4 and 7.1 in particular.

Or as fryewe pointed out a couple of pages ago, just read the one-paragraph abstract which, in relevant part, states that

[g]iven the acknowledged systematic, shared errors of all current climate models, treating model outputs as decision-relevant projections can be significantly misleading. In extrapolatory situations, such as projections of future climate change, there is little reason to expect that post-processing of model outputs can correct for the consequences of such errors. This casts doubt on our ability, today, to make trustworthy probabilistic projections at high resolution out to the end of the century.

It's worth noting the paper's apparent lack of bias, since the authors also state in the introduction that

[t]here is now a widespread consensus that global warming is real and in large part due to human activities.

http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/UKPC09_Synthese.pdf

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

So which is it? 'Always' arid, or arid now because of extravagant usage?

.

Read some California history, it was required reading 50 years ago when I attended school in Southern Cal. Nowadays, who knows what crap they're teaching the kids.

OK, to satisfy you I'll only go back in time to when the Spaniards landed in California 500 years ago and established missions.... Southern California (where the largest water issue exists today) was an arid, sage, semi desert like climate. During the entire 30 years I lived there 1959 until 1990, it never rained more than 8-10 days per year. During the summer, it never rained. What else would you call it? When it rained, it usually rained all day which could at times cause flooding along the river washes. So 50 years ago... the river washes were lined with concrete in order to prevent the artificial built up banks from eroding.

Don't go jumping back in time 2.6 million years to try and make some ridiculous point. Southern California had an arid climate 500 years ago, just as it did 60 years ago, and as it has today.... it still has an arid climate.

Let me ask you this question... What do YOU think caused the climate to change from semi tropical or lush forest 2.6 million years ago to the arid conditions today? Giant sloth and Sabertooth Tiger farts?

[StuM]

> What do YOU think caused the climate to change from semi tropical or lush forest 2.6 million years ago to the arid conditions today

Good question, it was thought that the Isthmus of Panama formed about them - completely changing ocean currents and consequently climate. But new evidence is suggesting that that happened about 10 million years earlier. Guess the science isn't settled

[lindabarzini]

Liberals have used the environment and healthcare for decades politically because fear is easy to generate and incredibly powerful.

In my not so humble opinion, anthropogenic global warming is going to go down as one of the greatest scams in history. The scientific "models" are laughable.

I judge a person's intelligence by his skepticism to AGW.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Read some California history, it was required reading 50 years ago when I attended school in Southern Cal. Nowadays, who knows what crap they're teaching the kids.

OK, to satisfy you I'll only go back in time to when the Spaniards landed in California 500 years ago and established missions.... Southern California (where the largest water issue exists today) was an arid, sage, semi desert like climate. During the entire 30 years I lived there 1959 until 1990, it never rained more than 8-10 days per year. During the summer, it never rained. What else would you call it? When it rained, it usually rained all day which could at times cause flooding along the river washes. So 50 years ago... the river washes were lined with concrete in order to prevent the artificial built up banks from eroding.

as i understand it, the problem in California today is the groundwater levels plumeting and the storage lakes running low due to overconsumption and lack of rain in the supply area?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by lindabarzini

Liberals have used the environment and healthcare for decades politically because fear is easy to generate and incredibly powerful.

In my not so humble opinion, anthropogenic global warming is going to go down as one of the greatest scams in history. The scientific "models" are laughable.

I judge a person's intelligence by his skepticism to AGW.

we are, to a certain level, trying to discuss this based on science, not on politics.
if you can not do that please refrain from posting so the mods do not have to close the thread.
thank you.

[newhaul]

NASA stunner: Burning fossil fuels cools Earth